I know this thread is tongue in cheek but some of the ideas basically vindicate the FIA's position that the show is more important than the sport and it makes for depressing reading. This is what brought us cheese tyres and DRS, for example.

F1 doesn't need gimmicks. It needs a bit more ambition applied to the rules and the most radical thing they can and should do is throw the rulebook out the window and start again. Over-regulation has proven itself to be a failure and any attempt to tighten everything down only results in the bigger teams gaining even bigger advantages by virtue of being aboe to out-spend everyone else to gain that extra half percent. And costs go through the roof because everybody is funneled down the same development paths where true innovation gets harder and harder to achieve.

They should open up the rules to allow creativity a chance to steal a march on spending power. Set maximum parameters on dimensions and maybe weights, fuel allowances etc, then leave the engineers to do what they are best at.

Its born out of desperation. F1 needs some radical changes now to bring more interesting Sundays. No amount of tinkering is going to help the sport, at this point its either a complete rewrite of the rules or a massive change.

Well I took Ideas that would never get approved but would be fun to watch as being tongue-in-cheek.

I agree with the idea that F1 needs a rewrite. I don't think I could ever get onboard with the idea that what F1 really needs is more gimmicks

Some great ideas on this thread.But for me, it needs fixed NOW!Not waiting for 2021 or whatever. Fix it now.FIA and Liberty need a backbone. Give the manufacturers no say in the rules. Make it fair and proper.No team other than Red Bull, Mercedes or Ferrari has had a car on the podium for over a year. Its obscene.And see if Mercedes and Ferrari don't like it, let them leave. I really do not care.

Some great ideas on this thread.But for me, it needs fixed NOW!Not waiting for 2021 or whatever. Fix it now.FIA and Liberty need a backbone. Give the manufacturers no say in the rules. Make it fair and proper.No team other than Red Bull, Mercedes or Ferrari has had a car on the podium for over a year. Its obscene.And see if Mercedes and Ferrari don't like it, let them leave. I really do not care.

Now, as in... mid-season? It is not possible.

One more year to run out all the current contracts and then start afresh in 2021. Sounds fair to me.

Its a giant mess right now. And its clear the things FIA thinks will result in better overtaking, less complex aero are not working. They thought it will make things easier if they simplified front wings. Look whats happening this year. We now have more complex barge boards, veins and slots and winglets in the floor.This is retarded restrictive thinking. They need to really get rid of these things.

Single element wings, both front and back. Flat floors, single element bargeboards, no veins, no slots, no winglets of any kind on the car anywhere. Teams will be free to design rest of the body work as they seem fit.Only 2 tyre compounds at each race. 8 softer compounts, 8 harder compounds. Let teams use them as they wish over weekend. No compulsion of using both tyre compounds in race. Remove fuel flow limits. Just fixed fuel for the race. Get rid of MGH-H. Keep simple MGU-K. This will reduce the cost of engines greatly and thus we can increase number of engines allowed per season. Increase battery capacity or ICE engine capacity to compensate. We can have 2L Turbo V6 + MGU-K.No penalty for gearbox changes.Remove restrictions on cambers and tyre pressure. If teams want to play with that, let em.

These changes will move the focus on mechanical grip, chassis performance and engine performance while bringing costs down. With no vortex generating things on cars, the cars behind will be allowed to follow closely. Yes, it will make cars slower initially as people come to terms with improving their mechanical grip, but cars will still be fast enough and with improved show.

Aero will still be important as focus will shift on how to get the bodywork to work aerodynamically for the simpler wings but it wont be able to leave as much turbulent air behind the car as current cars do.

Any other smartypants regulations FIA tries, will be countered by teams by finding loopholes. That has been history. Instead of having intricate regulations, they need simplified one like i mentioned. No lots, no veins, no winglets. No means no, not in any form. PERIOD.

I agree with the flat bottom cars and single profile wings. Another simple way to equalise things is to use naturally aspirated engines, so you have a limit of ambient air pressure controlling how much air you can get into the car. With less ground effects you could let the circuits become more bumpy and introduce suspension into F1 - not micro-suspension.It is all going back in time to do that, but the racing could be improved. They could use hard tyres which could last the race - then we maybe wouldn't have the circuit strewn with bits of rubber which prevent you going off the racing line. They could also make the drivers race within the limits of the actual circuit.

There are things that could improve the racing, but first of all you would need an F1 where the racing was considered the most important part of F1.

Some great ideas on this thread.But for me, it needs fixed NOW!Not waiting for 2021 or whatever. Fix it now.FIA and Liberty need a backbone. Give the manufacturers no say in the rules. Make it fair and proper.No team other than Red Bull, Mercedes or Ferrari has had a car on the podium for over a year. Its obscene.And see if Mercedes and Ferrari don't like it, let them leave. I really do not care.

Now, as in... mid-season? It is not possible.

One more year to run out all the current contracts and then start afresh in 2021. Sounds fair to me.

Granted, it is more difficult these days, but in the mid 90s, regulations were changed mid season in some occasions.

There is one rule change that could be implemented from one day to the next, which would require zero technical changes. Allow free use of the cursed DRS. Wherever, whenever. It has been a decade since moveable aerodynamic surfaces have been brought in as a fix to solve F1's problems, so use the fix radically.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Some great ideas on this thread.But for me, it needs fixed NOW!Not waiting for 2021 or whatever. Fix it now.FIA and Liberty need a backbone. Give the manufacturers no say in the rules. Make it fair and proper.No team other than Red Bull, Mercedes or Ferrari has had a car on the podium for over a year. Its obscene.And see if Mercedes and Ferrari don't like it, let them leave. I really do not care.

Now, as in... mid-season? It is not possible.

One more year to run out all the current contracts and then start afresh in 2021. Sounds fair to me.

Granted, it is more difficult these days, but in the mid 90s, regulations were changed mid season in some occasions.

When trying to stop Schumacher!!!

Joking aside, the regs you and most people propose are not to change the tyre compound or ban the mass damper; it is a radical overhaul that will make all of the grid obsolete. The aero, the standardisation of components, everything. It can't be done mid season. Soon most teams will start designing their cars for next season, so that could be possible. But again, I expect that a lot of contracts will have to be broken; it will be easier to wait for the 2021 overhaul that was already on the works. Just make it a total overhaul!

There is one rule change that could be implemented from one day to the next, which would require zero technical changes. Allow free use of the cursed DRS. Wherever, whenever. It has been a decade since moveable aerodynamic surfaces have been brought in as a fix to solve F1's problems, so use the fix radically.

I'd dare say more than one dear Fik, get rid of the blue flags, ban the radio comms, etc. All these are easily implemented if wanted.

Second session sets positions 11-20 involving the second fastest cars from each team from the first session

Third session sets positions 1-10 involving the fastest cars from each team from the first session

This will put fast cars all the way through the grid allowing for a lot of overtaking.

Interesting idea. But I find it artificial enough to put me off. The best driver-car combo should be rewarded. Why put someone that has done a great job at the back of the field? Just to see some overtakes? Give it 10-20 laps and the grid will be the same, the top cars will be at the front again. Like a fast car that starts from the pits, they always end up in the top spots anyway.

There is one rule change that could be implemented from one day to the next, which would require zero technical changes. Allow free use of the cursed DRS. Wherever, whenever. It has been a decade since moveable aerodynamic surfaces have been brought in as a fix to solve F1's problems, so use the fix radically.

I'd dare say more than one dear Fik, get rid of the blue flags, ban the radio comms, etc. All these are easily implemented if wanted.

I agree that reverting to the classic use of the blue flag would be radical and not cost any money. Doing away with radio comms would be eminently smart, but since so many fans seem bent on listening into them, I would as an interim measure force both drivers onto the same frequency. Wouldn't it be great if F1 would then show a "suspicionometer-graphic" onto the on-boards of some drivers?

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

There is one rule change that could be implemented from one day to the next, which would require zero technical changes. Allow free use of the cursed DRS. Wherever, whenever. It has been a decade since moveable aerodynamic surfaces have been brought in as a fix to solve F1's problems, so use the fix radically.

I'd dare say more than one dear Fik, get rid of the blue flags, ban the radio comms, etc. All these are easily implemented if wanted.

I agree that reverting to the classic use of the blue flag would be radical and not cost any money. Doing away with radio comms would be eminently smart, but since so many fans seem bent on listening into them, I would as an interim measure force both drivers onto the same frequency. Wouldn't it be great if F1 would then show a "suspicionometer-graphic" onto the on-boards of some drivers?

I was thinking something similar; to keep the drivers in the dark, don't tell them that the comms are down, let them yell in the radio! That will please the fans that like Kimi's outbursts!!! Can't see this working far beyond one race though

Swap drivers and tyres. Put one tyre in the cockpit and 4 drivers at the corners of the car. Initial laptimes will be slower but I expect them to pick up as the rules progress to lighter cars and drivers get fitter

There is one rule change that could be implemented from one day to the next, which would require zero technical changes. Allow free use of the cursed DRS. Wherever, whenever. It has been a decade since moveable aerodynamic surfaces have been brought in as a fix to solve F1's problems, so use the fix radically.

Not unlimited use but i'd like to see the use of DRS expanded so it can be used for a set amount of time per race.

DRS: I'd like to see DRS use allowed for, lets say, 5 or 6 minutes per race, to be used in any way the driver feels at any part of the circuit. The thing is with stuff like this is that, as Fiki said, it'd cost zilch to implement & could be put in tomorrow. Surely it'd be worth a trial somehow to test it's effectiveness.

Tyres: I'd like to see each team allocated a set amount of tyres per season. Lets say 30 sets of each compound. Could be 60, could be 100, doesn't matter. From that point on it is up to each team to decide what, from their total allotment of tyres, they use at each race. Once they've been selected for that race, they're no longer available whether they've been used or not.

Engines: Bar a few basic requirements, an open engine formula. Almost anything goes.

Components: Standardisation of non critical components.

Comms: Go back to barring pit to driver comms outside of anything to do with safety, strategy, or gap times etc.

There is one rule change that could be implemented from one day to the next, which would require zero technical changes. Allow free use of the cursed DRS. Wherever, whenever. It has been a decade since moveable aerodynamic surfaces have been brought in as a fix to solve F1's problems, so use the fix radically.

Not unlimited use but i'd like to see the use of DRS expanded so it can be used for a set amount of time per race.

DRS: I'd like to see DRS use allowed for, lets say, 5 or 6 minutes per race, to be used in any way the driver feels at any part of the circuit. The thing is with stuff like this is that, as Fiki said, it'd cost zilch to implement & could be put in tomorrow. Surely it'd be worth a trial somehow to test it's effectiveness.

Tyres: I'd like to see each team allocated a set amount of tyres per season. Lets say 30 sets of each compound. Could be 60, could be 100, doesn't matter. From that point on it is up to each team to decide what, from their total allotment of tyres, they use at each race. Once they've been selected for that race, they're no longer available whether they've been used or not.

Engines: Bar a few basic requirements, an open engine formula. Almost anything goes. Bar a few basic requirements, an open engine formula. Almost anything goes.

Components: Standardisation of non critical components.

Comms: Go back to barring pit to driver comms outside of anything to do with safety, strategy, or gap times etc.

Agreed with pretty much everything. Tyres maybe consider giving them free reign too, go to different suppliers and make whatever suits your car. But only 30, 60 per year.

The brakes standardisation can be tricky though, especially with the "anything goes" engine formula. If they manage to create a beast, they will need to stop it to, one team may need different brake specs that another. So I'd be up for standardisation for things like brakes, but it also needs to be up for the task...

There is one rule change that could be implemented from one day to the next, which would require zero technical changes. Allow free use of the cursed DRS. Wherever, whenever. It has been a decade since moveable aerodynamic surfaces have been brought in as a fix to solve F1's problems, so use the fix radically.

Not unlimited use but i'd like to see the use of DRS expanded so it can be used for a set amount of time per race.

DRS: I'd like to see DRS use allowed for, lets say, 5 or 6 minutes per race, to be used in any way the driver feels at any part of the circuit. The thing is with stuff like this is that, as Fiki said, it'd cost zilch to implement & could be put in tomorrow. Surely it'd be worth a trial somehow to test it's effectiveness.

Tyres: I'd like to see each team allocated a set amount of tyres per season. Lets say 30 sets of each compound. Could be 60, could be 100, doesn't matter. From that point on it is up to each team to decide what, from their total allotment of tyres, they use at each race. Once they've been selected for that race, they're no longer available whether they've been used or not.

Engines: Bar a few basic requirements, an open engine formula. Almost anything goes.

Components: Standardisation of non critical components.

Comms: Go back to barring pit to driver comms outside of anything to do with safety, strategy, or gap times etc.

Not meaning to be overly critical, but I see some issues with some of this.

DRS: whatever we do with DRS is simply changing the shape of the band-aid. If we're talking radical change then fundamentally the cars need to be designed in such a way that DRS is not needed.

Tyres: nice idea in principle but what happens when a team has been a little too enthusiastic and runs out at the end of the year? I'm generally against limitations on components like this

Engines: fully agree here

Components: am uncomfortable with the principle but OTOH recognise this could be a way for quick wins. Hidden components like gearboxes and brakes maybe, external like wings not so much, although wings should be restriced to e.g. single plane to make the cars less sensitive to turbulent air.

DRS: I'd like to see DRS use allowed for, lets say, 5 or 6 minutes per race, to be used in any way the driver feels at any part of the circuit. The thing is with stuff like this is that, as Fiki said, it'd cost zilch to implement & could be put in tomorrow. Surely it'd be worth a trial somehow to test it's effectiveness..

Not meaning to be overly critical, but I see some issues with some of this.

DRS: whatever we do with DRS is simply changing the shape of the band-aid. If we're talking radical change then fundamentally the cars need to be designed in such a way that DRS is not needed.

I completely disagree on this issue. The problem is the current DRS solution is that it is to give an advantage to a chasing car to which the defending car has no response. Giving drivers an equal quota of DRS to use whenever they want is a completely different thing. If a driver deploys DRS to overtake then the driver defending will also be able to deploy it to defend. It's no different to KERS usage, or even fuel usage. Drivers have a certain quantity of something they are allowed to use to give them performance and it's their choice how to use it.

While it may be making use of the same component, using it the way Jezza13 suggests means from a sporting point of view it is a totally and utterly different thing. The issue with DRS is not the physical technology on the car (ie, a movable wing to reduce drag and make the car go faster), it's the way it is used within the sporting regulations.

Some great ideas on this thread.But for me, it needs fixed NOW!Not waiting for 2021 or whatever. Fix it now.FIA and Liberty need a backbone. Give the manufacturers no say in the rules. Make it fair and proper.No team other than Red Bull, Mercedes or Ferrari has had a car on the podium for over a year. Its obscene.And see if Mercedes and Ferrari don't like it, let them leave. I really do not care.

Now, as in... mid-season? It is not possible.

One more year to run out all the current contracts and then start afresh in 2021. Sounds fair to me.

Well people have no patience, Rome wasn't built in a day and all that, they also don't seem to realise how expensive it is to constantly change the rules after every year.

There is one rule change that could be implemented from one day to the next, which would require zero technical changes. Allow free use of the cursed DRS. Wherever, whenever. It has been a decade since moveable aerodynamic surfaces have been brought in as a fix to solve F1's problems, so use the fix radically.

If all the cars are able to use DRS when they want how does that fix anything unless you are implying all the cars apart from the leader of the race?

Swap drivers and tyres. Put one tyre in the cockpit and 4 drivers at the corners of the car. Initial laptimes will be slower but I expect them to pick up as the rules progress to lighter cars and drivers get fitter

Yes, it's worth pointing out that F1 would have been a hell of a lot more exciting the past few years without Ferrari, Mercedes or Red Bull.

Are not like 50% of F1 fans, Ferrari fans?

Slap a Ferrari badge on the Alfa then.

I think you get my point. We would've had 4 different winning constructors from the last 5 races. The excellence at the top whilst being excellent does make things boring. I hope the budget cap will fix this issue once and for all.

DRS: I'd like to see DRS use allowed for, lets say, 5 or 6 minutes per race, to be used in any way the driver feels at any part of the circuit. The thing is with stuff like this is that, as Fiki said, it'd cost zilch to implement & could be put in tomorrow. Surely it'd be worth a trial somehow to test it's effectiveness..

Not meaning to be overly critical, but I see some issues with some of this.

DRS: whatever we do with DRS is simply changing the shape of the band-aid. If we're talking radical change then fundamentally the cars need to be designed in such a way that DRS is not needed.

I completely disagree on this issue. The problem is the current DRS solution is that it is to give an advantage to a chasing car to which the defending car has no response. Giving drivers an equal quota of DRS to use whenever they want is a completely different thing. If a driver deploys DRS to overtake then the driver defending will also be able to deploy it to defend. It's no different to KERS usage, or even fuel usage. Drivers have a certain quantity of something they are allowed to use to give them performance and it's their choice how to use it.

While it may be making use of the same component, using it the way Jezza13 suggests means from a sporting point of view it is a totally and utterly different thing. The issue with DRS is not the physical technology on the car (ie, a movable wing to reduce drag and make the car go faster), it's the way it is used within the sporting regulations.

DRS is there to offset the disadvantage of following behind another cars wake, if you allow the car in front to defend by using DRS then that totally negates having DRS in the first place.

DRS: I'd like to see DRS use allowed for, lets say, 5 or 6 minutes per race, to be used in any way the driver feels at any part of the circuit. The thing is with stuff like this is that, as Fiki said, it'd cost zilch to implement & could be put in tomorrow. Surely it'd be worth a trial somehow to test it's effectiveness..

Not meaning to be overly critical, but I see some issues with some of this.

DRS: whatever we do with DRS is simply changing the shape of the band-aid. If we're talking radical change then fundamentally the cars need to be designed in such a way that DRS is not needed.

I completely disagree on this issue. The problem is the current DRS solution is that it is to give an advantage to a chasing car to which the defending car has no response. Giving drivers an equal quota of DRS to use whenever they want is a completely different thing. If a driver deploys DRS to overtake then the driver defending will also be able to deploy it to defend. It's no different to KERS usage, or even fuel usage. Drivers have a certain quantity of something they are allowed to use to give them performance and it's their choice how to use it.

While it may be making use of the same component, using it the way Jezza13 suggests means from a sporting point of view it is a totally and utterly different thing. The issue with DRS is not the physical technology on the car (ie, a movable wing to reduce drag and make the car go faster), it's the way it is used within the sporting regulations.

Exactly. Instead of DRS being the band aid it is now, turn it into a strategic tool. Think of a hypothetical situation where on Sunday, after the safety car, that Verstappen had an additional minute or 2 of DRS over the Mercs.

Another change i'd make to engines that was prompted by this scenario. No variable engine modes or anything like that. Once the lights go out, the engine settings are fixed. I don't want to hear Pete Bonnington on the radio saying " Ok Lewis, strat mode 1, strat mode 1". It adds nothing to my viewing experience nor do I believe it adds to the overall health of the sport.

DRS: I'd like to see DRS use allowed for, lets say, 5 or 6 minutes per race, to be used in any way the driver feels at any part of the circuit. The thing is with stuff like this is that, as Fiki said, it'd cost zilch to implement & could be put in tomorrow. Surely it'd be worth a trial somehow to test it's effectiveness..

Not meaning to be overly critical, but I see some issues with some of this.

DRS: whatever we do with DRS is simply changing the shape of the band-aid. If we're talking radical change then fundamentally the cars need to be designed in such a way that DRS is not needed.

I completely disagree on this issue. The problem is the current DRS solution is that it is to give an advantage to a chasing car to which the defending car has no response. Giving drivers an equal quota of DRS to use whenever they want is a completely different thing. If a driver deploys DRS to overtake then the driver defending will also be able to deploy it to defend. It's no different to KERS usage, or even fuel usage. Drivers have a certain quantity of something they are allowed to use to give them performance and it's their choice how to use it.

While it may be making use of the same component, using it the way Jezza13 suggests means from a sporting point of view it is a totally and utterly different thing. The issue with DRS is not the physical technology on the car (ie, a movable wing to reduce drag and make the car go faster), it's the way it is used within the sporting regulations.

Exactly. Instead of DRS being the band aid it is now, turn it into a strategic tool. Think of a hypothetical situation where on Sunday, after the safety car, that Verstappen had an additional minute or 2 of DRS over the Mercs.

Another change i'd make to engines that was prompted by this scenario. No variable engine modes or anything like that. Once the lights go out, the engine settings are fixed. I don't want to hear Pete Bonnington on the radio saying " Ok Lewis, strat mode 1, strat mode 1". It adds nothing to my viewing experience nor do I believe it adds to the overall health of the sport.

Well, in their defence they have tried that with the front adjustable wing, haven't they? Free reign to use it twice a lap in a race. Didn't make any difference. So they went to the DRS solution, which does not allow another car to negate the advantage. In my view, just get rid of it, all of it!

DRS: I'd like to see DRS use allowed for, lets say, 5 or 6 minutes per race, to be used in any way the driver feels at any part of the circuit. The thing is with stuff like this is that, as Fiki said, it'd cost zilch to implement & could be put in tomorrow. Surely it'd be worth a trial somehow to test it's effectiveness..

Not meaning to be overly critical, but I see some issues with some of this.

DRS: whatever we do with DRS is simply changing the shape of the band-aid. If we're talking radical change then fundamentally the cars need to be designed in such a way that DRS is not needed.

I completely disagree on this issue. The problem is the current DRS solution is that it is to give an advantage to a chasing car to which the defending car has no response. Giving drivers an equal quota of DRS to use whenever they want is a completely different thing. If a driver deploys DRS to overtake then the driver defending will also be able to deploy it to defend. It's no different to KERS usage, or even fuel usage. Drivers have a certain quantity of something they are allowed to use to give them performance and it's their choice how to use it.

While it may be making use of the same component, using it the way Jezza13 suggests means from a sporting point of view it is a totally and utterly different thing. The issue with DRS is not the physical technology on the car (ie, a movable wing to reduce drag and make the car go faster), it's the way it is used within the sporting regulations.

Yes you're right it does change the scope of usage and effectively turns it into a version of the push to pass button they used to have in A1 GP and which I believe they now have in Indy. I agree that would be a better solution than the current DRS setup, BUT I still feel that DRS on the whole is a gimmick and if the cars were properly designed it shouldn't be needed.

I'm not tech expert so take the following as the potential ramblings of a technical illiterate, but it seems to me that allowing the use of DRS anywhere on the circuit is an accident waiting to happen. Removing that much downforce on a car indiscriminately has the potential to upset the balance quite dramatically and in that respect I think a push to pass would be a better option, if that's the ultimate aim.

DRS: I'd like to see DRS use allowed for, lets say, 5 or 6 minutes per race, to be used in any way the driver feels at any part of the circuit. The thing is with stuff like this is that, as Fiki said, it'd cost zilch to implement & could be put in tomorrow. Surely it'd be worth a trial somehow to test it's effectiveness..

Not meaning to be overly critical, but I see some issues with some of this.

DRS: whatever we do with DRS is simply changing the shape of the band-aid. If we're talking radical change then fundamentally the cars need to be designed in such a way that DRS is not needed.

I completely disagree on this issue. The problem is the current DRS solution is that it is to give an advantage to a chasing car to which the defending car has no response. Giving drivers an equal quota of DRS to use whenever they want is a completely different thing. If a driver deploys DRS to overtake then the driver defending will also be able to deploy it to defend. It's no different to KERS usage, or even fuel usage. Drivers have a certain quantity of something they are allowed to use to give them performance and it's their choice how to use it.

While it may be making use of the same component, using it the way Jezza13 suggests means from a sporting point of view it is a totally and utterly different thing. The issue with DRS is not the physical technology on the car (ie, a movable wing to reduce drag and make the car go faster), it's the way it is used within the sporting regulations.

Yes you're right it does change the scope of usage and effectively turns it into a version of the push to pass button they used to have in A1 GP and which I believe they now have in Indy. I agree that would be a better solution than the current DRS setup, BUT I still feel that DRS on the whole is a gimmick and if the cars were properly designed it shouldn't be needed.

I'm not tech expert so take the following as the potential ramblings of a technical illiterate, but it seems to me that allowing the use of DRS anywhere on the circuit is an accident waiting to happen. Removing that much downforce on a car indiscriminately has the potential to upset the balance quite dramatically and in that respect I think a push to pass would be a better option, if that's the ultimate aim.

DRS is not a push to pass button if both people can deploy it at the same time.

DRS is a push to pass in its current implementation because the driver behind gets to use it and the one in front doesn't - so the pursuing driver has a performance advantage.

Drivers having an allotted amount of DRS in a race is completely different. It's identical to party mode in the engines (which is limited by fuel usage) or choosing to pit at a different time to get the tyre advantage at a different phase.

Yes, a there could be a situation where a driver attacking has the option to use DRS and another driver has used their DRS up so cannot defend with it - but in that case the driver has elected to use the DRS up earlier and is exactly the same as a driver who has saved their soft tyres to the last stint, or gone economical on fuel earlier in the race to get more party mode laps at the end.

Some great ideas on this thread.But for me, it needs fixed NOW!Not waiting for 2021 or whatever. Fix it now.FIA and Liberty need a backbone. Give the manufacturers no say in the rules. Make it fair and proper.No team other than Red Bull, Mercedes or Ferrari has had a car on the podium for over a year. Its obscene.And see if Mercedes and Ferrari don't like it, let them leave. I really do not care.

About the soonest improvement they could do is change the tyres available for races. Give them nothing but the hardest compound.Slower cornering speeds, longer braking distances, slower acceleration, less saving of tyres and less chunks of rubber littering the track.

DRS: I'd like to see DRS use allowed for, lets say, 5 or 6 minutes per race, to be used in any way the driver feels at any part of the circuit. The thing is with stuff like this is that, as Fiki said, it'd cost zilch to implement & could be put in tomorrow. Surely it'd be worth a trial somehow to test it's effectiveness..

Not meaning to be overly critical, but I see some issues with some of this.

DRS: whatever we do with DRS is simply changing the shape of the band-aid. If we're talking radical change then fundamentally the cars need to be designed in such a way that DRS is not needed.

I completely disagree on this issue. The problem is the current DRS solution is that it is to give an advantage to a chasing car to which the defending car has no response. Giving drivers an equal quota of DRS to use whenever they want is a completely different thing. If a driver deploys DRS to overtake then the driver defending will also be able to deploy it to defend. It's no different to KERS usage, or even fuel usage. Drivers have a certain quantity of something they are allowed to use to give them performance and it's their choice how to use it.

While it may be making use of the same component, using it the way Jezza13 suggests means from a sporting point of view it is a totally and utterly different thing. The issue with DRS is not the physical technology on the car (ie, a movable wing to reduce drag and make the car go faster), it's the way it is used within the sporting regulations.

Exactly. Instead of DRS being the band aid it is now, turn it into a strategic tool. Think of a hypothetical situation where on Sunday, after the safety car, that Verstappen had an additional minute or 2 of DRS over the Mercs.

Another change i'd make to engines that was prompted by this scenario. No variable engine modes or anything like that. Once the lights go out, the engine settings are fixed. I don't want to hear Pete Bonnington on the radio saying " Ok Lewis, strat mode 1, strat mode 1". It adds nothing to my viewing experience nor do I believe it adds to the overall health of the sport.

Well, in their defence they have tried that with the front adjustable wing, haven't they? Free reign to use it twice a lap in a race. Didn't make any difference. So they went to the DRS solution, which does not allow another car to negate the advantage. In my view, just get rid of it, all of it!

The front wing regulations were completely different and very badly implemented. They were given two front wing adjustments per lap, and between two fixed positions - if I recall correctly - the idea being they they could increase their front wing when in the wake of a following car to overtake.

However the teams found there was a much bigger performance advantage to be gained by using it to manage the tyres, and it never got used for overtaking. Setting it up for overtaking opprtunities would have been detrimental to the tyre life use (as a driver needs to manage the tyre life on every lap of the race, whereas using it for overtaking is a case that may never even arise in a race)

It would be interesting if they brought back the moveable front wing again, and have multiple positions for it, and the ability to change it more frequently.

Not meaning to be overly critical, but I see some issues with some of this.

DRS: whatever we do with DRS is simply changing the shape of the band-aid. If we're talking radical change then fundamentally the cars need to be designed in such a way that DRS is not needed.

I completely disagree on this issue. The problem is the current DRS solution is that it is to give an advantage to a chasing car to which the defending car has no response. Giving drivers an equal quota of DRS to use whenever they want is a completely different thing. If a driver deploys DRS to overtake then the driver defending will also be able to deploy it to defend. It's no different to KERS usage, or even fuel usage. Drivers have a certain quantity of something they are allowed to use to give them performance and it's their choice how to use it.

While it may be making use of the same component, using it the way Jezza13 suggests means from a sporting point of view it is a totally and utterly different thing. The issue with DRS is not the physical technology on the car (ie, a movable wing to reduce drag and make the car go faster), it's the way it is used within the sporting regulations.

Exactly. Instead of DRS being the band aid it is now, turn it into a strategic tool. Think of a hypothetical situation where on Sunday, after the safety car, that Verstappen had an additional minute or 2 of DRS over the Mercs.

Another change i'd make to engines that was prompted by this scenario. No variable engine modes or anything like that. Once the lights go out, the engine settings are fixed. I don't want to hear Pete Bonnington on the radio saying " Ok Lewis, strat mode 1, strat mode 1". It adds nothing to my viewing experience nor do I believe it adds to the overall health of the sport.

Well, in their defence they have tried that with the front adjustable wing, haven't they? Free reign to use it twice a lap in a race. Didn't make any difference. So they went to the DRS solution, which does not allow another car to negate the advantage. In my view, just get rid of it, all of it!

The front wing regulations were completely different and very badly implemented. They were given two front wing adjustments per lap, and between two fixed positions - if I recall correctly - the idea being they they could increase their front wing when in the wake of a following car to overtake.

However the teams found there was a much bigger performance advantage to be gained by using it to manage the tyres, and it never got used for overtaking. Setting it up for overtaking opprtunities would have been detrimental to the tyre life use (as a driver needs to manage the tyre life on every lap of the race, whereas using it for overtaking is a case that may never even arise in a race)

It would be interesting if they brought back the moveable front wing again, and have multiple positions for it, and the ability to change it more frequently.

I was making the connection that the they gave the drivers free reign to use an overtaking tool as they wished, twice per lap. Similar overall idea that you proposed above. The DRS was supposed to be the upgraded version of this system. I agree that it was badly implemented and it didn't work of course, as you say above, to the point that the drivers didn't even bother with the damn thing(I remember Alonso saying that he didn't touch it in the first half of the season).

So all I was saying is that this idea of free reign to use something has been tried before and didn't work. Maybe it was the bad implementation, maybe it was that the drivers using it at the same time it would pretty much negate it and the result would be the same.

Open intellectual property. In a nutshell, allow open access to the detailed blue prints of the cars and individual components. Not far off the concept of customer parts but instead they see the design of each part and how they go together - that way each team can make the components themselves and allows them to make a "frankenstein" car. Its a similar idea to what happens in road cycling - all bike parts and accessories (from the bike itself through to helmets, shoes and the lycra they wear) have to be on the open market limiting any mechanical advantage a ride may have.

DRS: I'd like to see DRS use allowed for, lets say, 5 or 6 minutes per race, to be used in any way the driver feels at any part of the circuit. The thing is with stuff like this is that, as Fiki said, it'd cost zilch to implement & could be put in tomorrow. Surely it'd be worth a trial somehow to test it's effectiveness..

Not meaning to be overly critical, but I see some issues with some of this.

DRS: whatever we do with DRS is simply changing the shape of the band-aid. If we're talking radical change then fundamentally the cars need to be designed in such a way that DRS is not needed.

I completely disagree on this issue. The problem is the current DRS solution is that it is to give an advantage to a chasing car to which the defending car has no response. Giving drivers an equal quota of DRS to use whenever they want is a completely different thing. If a driver deploys DRS to overtake then the driver defending will also be able to deploy it to defend. It's no different to KERS usage, or even fuel usage. Drivers have a certain quantity of something they are allowed to use to give them performance and it's their choice how to use it.

While it may be making use of the same component, using it the way Jezza13 suggests means from a sporting point of view it is a totally and utterly different thing. The issue with DRS is not the physical technology on the car (ie, a movable wing to reduce drag and make the car go faster), it's the way it is used within the sporting regulations.

Yes you're right it does change the scope of usage and effectively turns it into a version of the push to pass button they used to have in A1 GP and which I believe they now have in Indy. I agree that would be a better solution than the current DRS setup, BUT I still feel that DRS on the whole is a gimmick and if the cars were properly designed it shouldn't be needed.

I'm not tech expert so take the following as the potential ramblings of a technical illiterate, but it seems to me that allowing the use of DRS anywhere on the circuit is an accident waiting to happen. Removing that much downforce on a car indiscriminately has the potential to upset the balance quite dramatically and in that respect I think a push to pass would be a better option, if that's the ultimate aim.

DRS is not a push to pass button if both people can deploy it at the same time.

DRS is a push to pass in its current implementation because the driver behind gets to use it and the one in front doesn't - so the pursuing driver has a performance advantage.

Drivers having an allotted amount of DRS in a race is completely different. It's identical to party mode in the engines (which is limited by fuel usage) or choosing to pit at a different time to get the tyre advantage at a different phase.

Yes, a there could be a situation where a driver attacking has the option to use DRS and another driver has used their DRS up so cannot defend with it - but in that case the driver has elected to use the DRS up earlier and is exactly the same as a driver who has saved their soft tyres to the last stint, or gone economical on fuel earlier in the race to get more party mode laps at the end.

I can see where Zoue is going with that. These are very competitive people, I can almost see two drivers pushing at the same time so much that they use DRS over a fast corner and the cars just go in the barriers. The "anywhere in the track" would be a very dangerous game.

Open intellectual property. In a nutshell, allow open access to the detailed blue prints of the cars and individual components. Not far off the concept of customer parts but instead they see the design of each part and how they go together - that way each team can make the components themselves and allows them to make a "frankenstein" car. Its a similar idea to what happens in road cycling - all bike parts and accessories (from the bike itself through to helmets, shoes and the lycra they wear) have to be on the open market limiting any mechanical advantage a ride may have.

That's almost a spec series then, isn't it? Against the whole idea of an F1 car

Open intellectual property. In a nutshell, allow open access to the detailed blue prints of the cars and individual components. Not far off the concept of customer parts but instead they see the design of each part and how they go together - that way each team can make the components themselves and allows them to make a "frankenstein" car. Its a similar idea to what happens in road cycling - all bike parts and accessories (from the bike itself through to helmets, shoes and the lycra they wear) have to be on the open market limiting any mechanical advantage a ride may have.

That's almost a spec series then, isn't it? Against the whole idea of an F1 car

No - remember it can take weeks for components to be made. If (for example) Merc bring a new design of front wing to a race, other teams would be unlikely to have their version of it ready to race until ~4-6 weeks later - at least 2 races by which time Merc would probably be on a new revision of it anyway. It does turn the whole of F1 into a complete development race.

as well as changing the cars away from this vortex based philosophy and making them easier to pass, i do fundamentally think we need a change of format for the race weekends. some people turn their noses up at sprint races, reverse grids but i really dont know why. for me the saturday of a weekend could be so much better. we dont need 4 hours of practice so scrap fp3 and do something else. i think a reverse grid sprint would be great. why not try it. there are so many options though. sprint race sat afternoon to set the grid for sunday after quali on sat morning etc etc. there are people far cleverer then me working at the fia so surely there has to be something better to spice things up. unfortunatley i think the teams would be reluctant.